Short version: Behind-the-scenes things are apparently not
quite as troubled as the (small world of media insiders) has been
lead to believe.

The tensions spilled into public view last week when the Page Six
gossip column in The New York Post said Ms. Parker had stormed
off the set in early November. Asked about that claim, Ms. Parker
said, “I don’t storm. I saunter.”

She acknowledged that there was some “editorial and political
tension,” but cast it as a normal part of television production.
“That’s how human beings are made,” she added.

Mr. Spitzer put it this way: “I’ve seen tension in my life —
conflict, tension, acrimony — and I haven’t seen anything here
that comes close to what I’ve seen.”

Which one imagines is part of the problem.

It seems pretty clear CNN could have a relative hit on their
hands if they simply unleashed Spitzer. One easy way to do
so would be to do the show live. One need only take a quick
look around the cablesphere to see that the shows that do well
feature unpredictable hosts live on TV (O'Reilly, who tapes live,
is the exception, but he's also been around the longest).
Combine that unpredictableness with Spitzer's knowledge of the
financial world (at a time when everyone is talking
deficit and tax cuts) and it seems to me you'd at least have
more-seen TV.

Also, can someone explain why Eliot Spitzer is not on
Twitter? Piers Morgan doesn't even have a
show yet and he's already racked up nearly 70,000 followers in a
week.